"Long term" rules

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 3:51 pm

Hi. I have seen a few comments that said something like, "The new edition has long term rules that are not smart but incomplete." I believe Trambi made the comments, but anyone with an opinion on this is free to chime in.

I think you're saying that the long-term rules (i.e., league rules for teams that play many games) are deficient in BB2K1; furthermore, the 3E rules (or maybe the 4E rules?) were better.

If you feel this way, could you explain why?

If you don't feel this way, could you clear the matter up for me? I realize English is not your first language, so it's possible that I'm not correctly reading your intentions.

Thanks!

-Chet

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 4:30 pm

As i say in the topic House Rules » » Long term rules . The third edition rules allow us to play a match (BB), several matchs (DZ)but not playing several seasons (of great amont of matchs).

The ageing rule is a good one, but many other can be do. Pensions, Very high rated team are always a pb (I have already seens team which have play 30 matchs with the team rating of Reikland Reavers).

PS : See no offense BBRC members

[ This Message was edited by: Trambi on 2002-02-26 16:43 ]

Longshot · Post by **Longshot** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:41 pm

the meaning is:
(what we tryed to do with our house rules, still not tranlated)

Where is the background of beetween games.
2nd Ed was very full of it, but 3ed and 4th Ed are defficient on this point.
For between Tournaments and between games.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 2:43 pm

LS don't talk in my name

!
Let's talk about aging i think a good idea but it's possible to see a chaos warrior

) of BB players : normal aged, slowly aged, and immortals.

I know that my sentence may be uncorrect

)but the idea is here

[ This Message was edited by: Trambi on 2002-02-27 15:49 ]

McDeth · Post by **McDeth** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 2:49 pm

I think what your saying is that aging should not be a consequence of gaining a skill in between matches. The way ageing works at the moment is that you ccan be punished for gaining a skill. A little unrealistic, but at the moment it works in limiting sides becoming ridiculously highly rated.

While there are historically very high rated teams in BB history, if they became common place on the tabletop, then new teams would never be able to compete.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:35 pm

If you don't like the term Aging ... fine ... call it Wear and Tear .... call it Bodily Abuse Factor .... the name is completely unimportant.

Look its NOT punishment for getting a skill. The most realistic indictor and the easiest to understand is linking it to the skill roll. Who has more body abuse on the field ... the player who bench sits or the one out there getting hit and scoring the touchdowns. In many sports, the top athletes are injured by the strain ... a faster fastball means more strain on a shoulder joint than a slower one.

Now don't fight me back with the real world ... I'm just saying that linking the "aging" roll to the skill roll is NOT a penalty ... it was the easiest and best mechanic for this game balancer. I've seen a lot of other systems ... they were either too complicated to work or didn't work .... this one does.

Galak

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:40 pm

Aging is really not a big deal, I have have only had one player age so far and the result wasn't even that bad. So far in my league I haven't noticed many aging results, most skilled players manage to get kicked to death long before they get old.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:48 pm

Ok, I don't think that ageing is a skill punishement.
Different players should have different rules for ageing. For example a mummy should not make the test, and a warrior chaos too.

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:57 pm

Well, Anthony, you were lucky.

My Mummie aged himelf a NI and My vampire got a AV decrease. Since My vampire lost OFAB from the previous rules, I must hold on to him, but I'm guessing that lack of blood made him weak

The mummie's linnen has probably also lost most of their strength and somedays he trips over them and can't make it to the stadium. That's the way I see it.

Lucy

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:56 pm

My star human catcher lost a point of AV also on one of his agings ... MA 9, Dodge, Catch, Dump Off, Pass ... and now he's AV 6 with that wonderful human catcher ST 2 .... I'm thinking he's got target written all over him.

However, within a few games the aging will cause me to do what its meant to do ... I'd rather have a rookie AV 7 then my star with his AV 6 target ... so I'll probably retire and replace him soon ... but that's how the new system is supposed to work. I can take the risk of him getting crushed like a grape due to his aging, or bring some new blood and build him up.

Galak

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 5:04 pm

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 5:07 pm

Trambi ... one of the basic principals of Blood Bowl is KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) ... note this is not an insult ... the idea of KISS has been around for YEARS.

Anyway, if you start trying to make exceptions to say that some players age but some don't you get into a rules mess as players try to remember what effects who.

Look at it this way.... Mummies from Serious Injuries can get Niggles, -1 AV, -1 MA, -1 AG, and -1 ST. All the aging roll represents is a Serious Injury that has results over the course of the player's constant playing of BB instead of a Serious Injury caused by one bone breaking impact.

So when you look at aging .... DO NOT think about the roll being the effects of the player getting physically older.

INSTEAD think like this ... I'm rolling for a Serious Injury caused by the wear on my player from playing such a brutal sport.

I think this will help you understand and accept it better. If you still disagree, then my next question would be ... do you also feel that Mummies and Chaos Warrior should always treat Serious Injuries as Badly Hurt instead. If your answer is no, then there you go ... you just need to change the word Aging to whatever the French word is for .... "I play this sport where players die all the time ... and while I'm still alive and never really hit hard enought to really take me out of the game ... after 15 games I starting to have some stiffness in my legs and its slows me down a little" .... I'm not sure what the appropriate French word would be for that ... but whatever it is use it and then you won't have a problem with the realism of "Aging".

Galak

[ This Message was edited by: GalakStarscraper on 2002-02-27 17:10 ]

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 5:45 pm

First there is a difference between an injury and ageing, if not the ageing rule is a non sense.
Secondly do you think that we have already a bonus/malus on FF table or in winnings table is really too hard to understood

. So a bonus in ageing table for undeads and chaos warrior is not again the KISS point of view.

Acerak · Post by **Acerak** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 5:58 pm

Hi, guys. Thanks for all the responses. No, I don't take offense to any suggestions! No one is going to be 100% happy with every feature of the system. It wasn't like that when any previous version of Blood Bowl came out, and I wager that the future won't be much different

As for realism, 3E BB ignored it in many instances. For example, why would a Mummy be affected by Rakarth's Spell of Petty Spite, which clearly simulates some sort of bowel trouble?

"Well, it's magic," you reply. "It could be different." And that's fair. But why would the Undead be bothered by Flu Bug? Why would a Necromancer leave for a Better Offer - after all, he already has the best (head) coaching job he could imagine.

The list goes on, but I've forgotten most of 'em. I think you get the idea. Mummies still have longer lifespans (Regenerate). Chaos Warriors are still strong (ST4) and tough to injure (AV9). These things haven't really changed. Any Elf coach could make the same "lifespan" argument, but for whatever reason, I've noticed that most of 'em don't...don't ask me why not, it's just always an Undead thing.

Cheers!

-Chet

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 6:01 pm

Thank Acerak,
So bonuses for all the elves too